The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 458 times Debate No: 78029
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




Science use to be the search for truth. Now science is used as a tool to create a truth it wants. Before the article was pulled due to pressure of the powers that be, Time Magazine wrote about evolution this way, " Evolution is like watching a movie with 999 out of a 1000 frames missing". If Evolution were true, there would billions upon billions of fossils showing the slow progression.


The definition of evolution as you are using it is this:

"Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift." (1)

This does happen! Unless you can disprove the existence mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift, you cannnot win this debate. Even if you don't believe in the concept of billions of years (I don't either), it is undeniable that microevolution occurs because it happens before our very eyes. Sparrows in the United States have different beak sizes in different parts of the country. Do you think this is because sparrows just popped out right there for no reason? It's because of microevolution that the sparrows who have beaks that fit their surroundings reproduce more. They are more likely to survive all the way until they are old enough to mate, and they will reproduce with sparrows that have similar beak sizes (2). This is common sense, and it is part of evolution. To compare this natural and observable phenomenon to a fairy-tale is very ignornant.

Fairy-tales are not usually believed on a wide-scale. There are many people who think evolution is true. Most sane people believe at least certain parts of the theory are true. Therefore, how can it be a fairy-tale? Fairy-tales aren't meant to sound true, and a lot of evolution sounds true.

Thank you for the debate! I know it will be fun!


Debate Round No. 1


Nice try, but let's keep it simple. You know exactly where I'm coming from. If your going to waist my time by using your version of what the definition of "is" is, then I'll be on my way. I want a debate, not word games. I only play one game, and that's chess. So put away your birds and let's get to it.

Instead of muddying the waters with scientific jargon, pseudo-science and bubbly bio-chemical banter. Lets start at the beginning while I will promise not mention Occam's razor. My belief in a Creator and Creation and my rejection of all secular explanations stems from one simple question that has been the unwavering monkey wrench in the growing list of theories of the evolutionists, secular scientists and Ancient Alien Theorists (LOL) among others.

Where and how all the matter that is in the universe got there? This question has baffled the so called "Sons of monkey wannabes" for years. The secular materialists introduced "The Big Bang Theory". But there's a problem, if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then what blew up? If there WAS something there before the Big Bang, then where back at the original question. There is only one answer, "the matter was placed there".

Now about Evolution, if it did happen, there would be a fossil record so vast we would be tripping all over the stuff. It does not exist. There is more evidence of Creation then Evolution.

The Darwinist paradigm, is about to face the same revolution that Newtonian physics faced 100 years ago. Just as physicists discovered that the atom was not a fatty mass particle, as Newton believed but a baffling quantum arena accessible only through mathematics. So too are biologists coming to understand that the cell is not a simple lump of protoplasm, as Darwin believed. It's a complex information-processing machine comprising tens of thousands of proteins arranged in fabulously intricate algorithms of communication and synthesis.

Darwinism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science.

Right back at ya my friend. Thank You


I would like to point out some things to you. First off, this is a debate website, and I am allowed to use science and logic in my argument. Second off, we are arguing for the truth of this statement:

"Evolution is one the biggest contemporary fairy-tales of all time."

I am arguing that the statement is false. It's hard to interpret the meaning of that statement because it has improper grammar, but besides that, it is indeed false. Regardless of whether you believe in the concept of billions of years, you cannot deny that parts of the theory are indeed true. Because of that, evolution isn't the biggest contemporary fairy tale of all time. You failed to tell me how my sparrow theory was untrue, and therefore, I will not put it away. Parts of evolution are observable before our very eyes, and it is insane to deny that natural selection and microevolution were not at work in the sparrow situation. How do you explain the fact that certain sparrows show up in certain parts of the United States in the exact spots that are best for each type of sparrow?

Also, you used the idea that thoughts of Newton were later proven wrong. Are you saying that any scientific idea created in the past is wrong? That is insane! What about the theory of gravity? Does that exist? It's as observable before our eyes in the same way as parts of evolution.

The existence of mutation is another evidence that parts of evolution are indeed true. Just by random chance and the imperfection in genetics, you can get some weird things. Even Fruit Flies can have mutations (1).

That is an example of evolution, and you can see it with your very eyes! How do you deny that?


Debate Round No. 2


Yes but we are talking about Evolution. Not micro-evolution.


I would like to repost my link.


Also, microevolution, natural selection, and mutation are all parts of evolution, and the fact that they exist before our very eyes provides proof that evolution is not a straight up fairy tale even if it has flaws. I have nothing more to rebuttal here.

Vote con because I used sources, proper grammar, and provided scientific and logical evidence. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TyroneShelton 1 year ago
I love how people say the universe had to be created, because something cant come from nothing, except the God that created it, which came from nothing. Make up your mind, Can something come from nothing or not.
Posted by MightyKerbal 1 year ago
Specifying terms is "muddying the waters"?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Discipulus_Didicit 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made his argument, a fairly logical one, then pro brought up the hugest non sequitur in DDO history. Seriously, wtf does evolution have to do with how matter came to exist? Conduct to con because pro was very rude in wasting cons time with this debate.
Vote Placed by sara_ann_dee 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides were respectful to each other and avoided any spelling or grammatical mistakes. CON was the only side to use and cite a source. CON, overall, had a better argument then PRO: he had better counterarguments, he presented more evidence, and he was more persuasive than his opponent.